|
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"ameijers" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... (snip) Some of your category descriptions are too vague. Druggies? If you kid was going to college to learn broadcasting, and was offered a job in Rush Limbaugh's studio, can I assume you would not allow this because Rush is a drug addict? Immoral? Would you let your kid work as an intern with some of our congressmen, knowing that at any moment, you'd probably read that they were being indicted for one thing or another? What makes you think a Mexican in a top-notch restaurant kitchen fits any of your labels? Quit trying to put words in my mouth, Doug- I said or implied nothing of the kind. Being the offspring of immigrants, I am quite familiar with the nose-in-the-air condescending attitude of some Nth generation whitebreads. I have absolutely no problems with Mexicans, Hispanics, or any other ethnic group of self-or-externally identified name. As a kid working construction, I crossed paths with lots of Spanish-speaking casual labor and tradesmen. I don't speak Spanish, many of them spoke little English, but as far as I know, we got along fine. I was just the kid humping supplies, or picking up trash. Most of them made me look bad with the amount of work they turned out. As to your other examples, you know bloody well what I meant- street people of whatever background or ethnicity- the ones that regard a new teenager on the block as fresh meat. The type of people who could put a gullible kid at risk with proximity to violence, recreational pharmecuticals, disease vectors related to drug use or coerced sex, ad infinitum. Of course white collar druggies and corrupt politicians are scum, but they are far less likely to put a kid at actual risk, with the occasional exceptions like the young lady Teddy drove off a bridge. The risk could be offset by the education of seeing how success means more than money, and even famous people can do stupid things. aem sends... I think white collar druggies are MORE dangerous than street people. To the impressionable (i.e.: kids), they make it seem that you can do dangerous things to yourself and still be successful. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". It seems to me that I have seen many reports that the common view is they want to find and send back anyone, including those employed who are here without permission. I wonder if it would not be a good idea to put a fence around Iowa and require the same kind of documentation? How about your city. Would you support a law that no one with a criminal record as a pedophile would be allowed in and make sure that anyone who is not already there provide proof at the city limits that they don't have such a record? -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
|
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
: Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". It seems to me that I have seen many reports that the common view is they want to find and send back anyone, including those employed who are here without permission. YES;no rewarding violation of our immigration policy and LAWS. What part of that don't you understand? -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
|
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
|
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message oups.com... Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message oups.com... ..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they could be, the machines would exist. ............. not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no ines for harvesting strawberries is due to the fact that there's no demand for them yet? In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs. must have been their altruistic side making those decisions No, but I suspect that the reasons *could* be psychological in nature. I know about a dozen farmers, and most of them share an interesting trait with home gardeners: A preference for working alone. A machine eliminates dealing with the annoyances of supervising employees. just like people in SoCal stopped mowing their own lawns, because it wasn't worth their time. If the illegals disappeared, lawn mowing would become more costly and some people would pay more for legals, some would mow their own, some would replace their lawns with low maint gardens. it's all about choices, "economic" choices (even if the folks making the choice fail to see it) time vs money; DIY or job it out.........millions & millions of choices and the illegal alien pool of cheap labor skew the choices in favor of labor over alternatives but it seems like I won't be able to convince you......... Here, I'll repeat my question: Why have so many crops been harvested exclusively by machine, as far back as the 1940s? It's more than the novelty of the machines, or a casual choice on the part of farmers. Here, I'll repeat my question: Why have so many crops been harvested exclusively by machine, as far back as the 1940s? It's more than the novelty of the machines, or a casual choice on the part of farmers I repeat my answer..............because it makes Economic sense! that is why things are done the way they are done in the business world. No, but I suspect that the reasons *could* be psychological in nature. I know about a dozen farmers, and most of them share an interesting trait with home gardeners: A preference for working alone. A machine eliminates dealing with the annoyances of supervising employees. And the "cost" of dealing with employees is weighed along with other cost asssociated with labor against the cost of machine usage. Mechanically pruned & harvested fruit took off in the 60's when the Bracero program was ended. Robot vacuums & lawn mowers exist (pioneer compaines.......very little demad, yet) cheers Bob |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
|
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bee" wrote in message oups.com... Thank you. I don't care what country you come from, IF you come here legally. Secondly, let's not forget that this is not -only- about the Mexicans coming here illegally, but all who are entering this country illegally. If 12 million Mexicans can "sneak" into this country, who else is getting in illegally? If Bush is so concerned about terrorism, why isn't this problem higher on his terrorism list? Because Bush is incompetent. This country needs a manager with a track record of success, and the ability to brutally manhandle, chew up and spit out those who would distract him/her from what's important. Who do you suggest? |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"Robert" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bee" wrote in message oups.com... Thank you. I don't care what country you come from, IF you come here legally. Secondly, let's not forget that this is not -only- about the Mexicans coming here illegally, but all who are entering this country illegally. If 12 million Mexicans can "sneak" into this country, who else is getting in illegally? If Bush is so concerned about terrorism, why isn't this problem higher on his terrorism list? Because Bush is incompetent. This country needs a manager with a track record of success, and the ability to brutally manhandle, chew up and spit out those who would distract him/her from what's important. Who do you suggest? Someone like William Swanson, CEO of Raytheon, or Jack Welch. Maybe Carly Fiorina, although critics of Hewlett-Packard have bad things to say about her. For decades now, the White House has been influenced by dilettantes like the ******s who cooked up the domino theory. We need a president who has a plan and a vision, and is willing to have such idiots physically removed from his office, using violence if necessary. That's what bodyguards are for. In the list of wackos to be ejected, we can include anyone with even a hint of religious motivation behind their suggestions. This country is a business, not a ****ing church committee. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"BobK207" wrote in message oups.com... Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message oups.com... Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message oups.com... ..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they could be, the machines would exist. ............. not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no ines for harvesting strawberries is due to the fact that there's no demand for them yet? In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs. must have been their altruistic side making those decisions No, but I suspect that the reasons *could* be psychological in nature. I know about a dozen farmers, and most of them share an interesting trait with home gardeners: A preference for working alone. A machine eliminates dealing with the annoyances of supervising employees. just like people in SoCal stopped mowing their own lawns, because it wasn't worth their time. If the illegals disappeared, lawn mowing would become more costly and some people would pay more for legals, some would mow their own, some would replace their lawns with low maint gardens. it's all about choices, "economic" choices (even if the folks making the choice fail to see it) time vs money; DIY or job it out.........millions & millions of choices and the illegal alien pool of cheap labor skew the choices in favor of labor over alternatives but it seems like I won't be able to convince you......... Here, I'll repeat my question: Why have so many crops been harvested exclusively by machine, as far back as the 1940s? It's more than the novelty of the machines, or a casual choice on the part of farmers. Here, I'll repeat my question: Why have so many crops been harvested exclusively by machine, as far back as the 1940s? It's more than the novelty of the machines, or a casual choice on the part of farmers I repeat my answer..............because it makes Economic sense! that is why things are done the way they are done in the business world. No, but I suspect that the reasons *could* be psychological in nature. I know about a dozen farmers, and most of them share an interesting trait with home gardeners: A preference for working alone. A machine eliminates dealing with the annoyances of supervising employees. And the "cost" of dealing with employees is weighed along with other cost asssociated with labor against the cost of machine usage. Mechanically pruned & harvested fruit took off in the 60's when the Bracero program was ended. Robot vacuums & lawn mowers exist (pioneer compaines.......very little demad, yet) cheers Bob What percentage of California strawberries would you estimate are HARVESTED by machines? |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Kanter wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message egroups.com... ..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they could be, the machines would exist. ............. not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no incentive for such a machine to exist. . ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also too delicate for anything but human handling...... Again at what relative cost? as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields will be stunted no machine could ever fly, one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound, it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely how could one ever operate on a persons heart active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive! what else do we put on the list? The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap labor available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs. There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs. I don't think you can support those statements. There were numerous reasons that agriculture was mechanized--the war reduced the available labor, the mass movement toward the cities, the consolidation of farms into bigger units, the change from the "family farm" to farming as a business, the change in machinery available etc. This still doesn't explain why we don't have machines to harvest strawberries and quite a few other crops. Just to be sure we're on the same page here, do you believe the reason is that there's no demand for them? No to the last. The reason is probably economics, cheaper to pay labor than to develop, buy, and maintain machines. Also the way they are grown would probably have to change and could increase costs. It certainly isn't because the strawberries are delicate. Recent ones that I ate were nearly as hard as apples. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. . wrote in : On Wed, 03 May 2006 05:26:05 GMT, Ernie Klein wrote: I find it interesting that the same liberals who love unions also love the immigrants. I guess I must really confuse you. I am a conservative who is not a big union fan (they promote mediocrity) but I support immigraiton for anyone who will work and pay taxes. Only when they enter the country LEGALLY. They are not stealing anyone's job. Our kids refuse to take those jobs. Still NO reason to abandon our immigration laws or policies. I'm wondering if there have been social & economic changes in this country which might point to a change in some laws. I haven't had coffee yet, so this might be a silly idea. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
... Doug Kanter wrote: "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message legroups.com... ..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they could be, the machines would exist. ............. not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no incentive for such a machine to exist. . ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also too delicate for anything but human handling...... Again at what relative cost? as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields will be stunted no machine could ever fly, one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound, it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely how could one ever operate on a persons heart active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive! what else do we put on the list? The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap labor available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs. There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs. I don't think you can support those statements. There were numerous reasons that agriculture was mechanized--the war reduced the available labor, the mass movement toward the cities, the consolidation of farms into bigger units, the change from the "family farm" to farming as a business, the change in machinery available etc. This still doesn't explain why we don't have machines to harvest strawberries and quite a few other crops. Just to be sure we're on the same page here, do you believe the reason is that there's no demand for them? No to the last. The reason is probably economics, cheaper to pay labor than to develop, buy, and maintain machines. Also the way they are grown would probably have to change and could increase costs. It certainly isn't because the strawberries are delicate. Recent ones that I ate were nearly as hard as apples. Farmers don't develop the machinery, and farm equipment manufacturers don't pay farm laborers. But, never mind. I'm doing some research that should interest you. I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in : Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". It seems to me that I have seen many reports that the common view is they want to find and send back anyone, including those employed who are here without permission. YES;no rewarding violation of our immigration policy and LAWS. What part of that don't you understand? Let's back up a little. Why do you want those immigration laws that keep out others. Let's take that issue a little further and look at part of my message you sniped " I wonder if it would not be a good idea to put a fence around Iowa and require the same kind of documentation? "How about your city. Would you support a law that no one with a criminal record as a pedophile would be allowed in and make sure that anyone who is not already there provide proof at the city limits that they don't have such a record?" -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in : Jim Yanik wrote: "Joseph Meehan" wrote in : You analogy does not apply. The line at the grocery store is real, the waiting list for entry into the US is a political decision to satisfy those who hate and fear those who are different. But that list is STILL **OUR** decision to make and implement. Not foreigners. The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. No,it is not. Why do you think it is not? Looking at history, time and time again when two groups have merged, they both gained. I wonder how Germany would have made out if they did not decide that they had to maintain their pure race and exterminate others. Invalid comparison. Really? -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". It seems to me that I have seen many reports that the common view is they want to find and send back anyone, including those employed who are here without permission. Yep. You still don't get it. The point is that when they come in without the proper documentation, we can't do the background checks necessary to make sure that they're not criminals. I wonder if it would not be a good idea to put a fence around Iowa and require the same kind of documentation? I guess that's up to the citizens of Iowa. How about your city. Would you support a law that no one with a criminal record as a pedophile would be allowed in and make sure that anyone who is not already there provide proof at the city limits that they don't have such a record? Sure. Why not? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
hey make every illegal go away.
do know food will be much more costly homes will cost more many business will leave the US altogether for cheaper contries... our economy will falter big business will be unhappy this is why nearly no one talks about deporting them all, just stopping future ones... |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"KC" wrote in message ... May 01, 2006, 7:08 a.m. A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant An imaginary exercise. By Tom Tancredo What would a day without illegal aliens really be like? Let's try to imagine it. On May 1, millions of illegal aliens working in meat-processing plants, construction, restaurants, hotels, and other "jobs Americans won't do" are supposed to stay home from work to show the importance of their labor to our nation's economy. Doubtless, there will be some inconvenience if that happens, but there is another side to the story that is not being reported. ........................................... snipped ............................................ .. Somehow this poster managed to mention all the negative aspects. Won't repeat them all here ........... But none of the positives? As a non-American, non Mexican, but a neighbour may we offer a comment from a different point of view. There are a lot of 'Americans' in our country and we are unsure how many are here legally? Or have overstayed their welcome? Passports and visas/work permits for Americans will be a good idea to sort out our problem also. Our suggestion is: Build a complete wall around the USA (or at least the lower 48). make sure the ports and airports are secure and have US citizens stay home inside? In many parts of the world this would be welcome news! Import as little as possible from elsewhere; that will help take care of the existing US 'balance of trade deficit'. Use US made goods as far as possible. All electrcity, oil and water used in the USA should come from US resources, without dependence on other countries. If this policy was effective there would be fewer "Yankee go home" demonstrations; US military expenditures would be curtailed and Americans will 'be avaialble' to do those lower paid jobs that it is presumed are being done by those 'illegals'. When/if US citizens needed to travel abroad, for any reason, they would have a valid passport for exiting and returning and also obtain a visa valid for a certain period of time to enter and stay in another country. US citizens would not be permitted to work or perform certain occupations in other countries, unless there was a shortage and the other country issued the equivalent of a green card. American companies would not be allowed to enter and set up shop in other countries such as Mexico or elswhere; their investment should be made within the USA in order to employ US citizens. Now this is only a suggestion mind you: It would appear reasonable that the existing citizens of all countries have the right to determine the policy regarding permanent immigration and entry into their country that their government should follow; be that sometimes there are humanitarian conditions also. Also the 'natural resources' of any country belong to and are regulated by that country; no one else, for example should be able to tell the US how to use the electricity generated by, say, the Hoover dam; or tell the US how to use it's oil/gas. But what about telling US company, Wal Mart the biggest retailer in the world, to buy only US made goods? It does seem that there is work to be done within the north American economy and the USA has allowed what some perceive as a huge problem of an 'illegal' immigrant work force to develop, particularly, but not exclusively, from Mexico. Interestingly almost all US citizens today, except those whose ancestors were the previous aboriginal peoples (and even they probably came from somewere else over 10,000 years ago!) are descendents of immigrants; some legal some not. I have a remote European ancestor, back in the 1890s, who "Went Stateside" jumped ship and was never heard of again. But since he was a 'black sheep' of our family nobody talked about it! No I won't mention our European family name. And I won't mention the statue of Liberty either .......................... "Yearning (immigrants that is) to be free ............... etc. " So does first generation immigrant have less 'right' than say a fourth or fifth generation? Even the names of leaders such as Bush, Rice, Kennedy, Rumsfeld, Schwarznegger, Kerry etc. identify their mainly European or other origins! Or that their forbears were imported as slaves by, mainly, Europeans etc. BTW just found out the other day the The Pilgrims Fathers stopped for supplies in the non-US port where I now live! Also the USA does not appear to have done a good job of incorporating other languages and or people of other 'faiths', into its culture as has, for example, Canada, which has two official languages and an official 'multi cultural' policy. Maybe the two official languages of the USA should be Spanish and American? It seems that in the US you gotta profess some version of 'Christianity' although some may be cults of some sort, speak what Americans call 'English' (although why it is still called that, so many years after the Boston Tea Party, is odd?), carry a gun and complain about having to wear a car seat belt? I trust most readers will perceive that this is being written somewhat facetiously? :-) But sometimes, it's interesting to think about the shoe being on the other foot (which it will eventually be). Eh? To our US cousins we do wish all the best. Canuck. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
In article .com, " wrote:
hey make every illegal go away. do know food will be much more costly homes will cost more many business will leave the US altogether for cheaper contries... That's been happening for a number of years already. Apparently you hadn't noticed. our economy will falter Absolute nonsense. The total number of illegal aliens in the US is estimated at 11 to 12 million. Many of these are children. More than a few of the adults are unemployed. Deporting all of them would reduce the pool of available workers by maybe 4 to 5 million -- which is around three percent of the total workforce. The effect on the economy would be quite minor, at worst. big business will be unhappy this is why nearly no one talks about deporting them all, just stopping future ones... No, the reason hardly anyone talks about deporting them all is that it just isn't practical to round up and deport twelve million people. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
In article , "Stan" wrote:
Also the USA does not appear to have done a good job of incorporating other languages and or people of other 'faiths', into its culture as has, for example, Canada, which has two official languages and an official 'multi cultural' policy. And how's that working for you up there? Before you answer... ask a Quebecois how *he* likes it. Maybe the two official languages of the USA should be Spanish and American? So far, we've managed to escape the separatists strife that comes along with that sort of thing. You can't say the same for your nation. I think we'll just keep that one the way it is right now. It seems that in the US you gotta profess some version of 'Christianity' Can't imagine what makes you think that. In our Bill of Rights, the very *first* right enumerated is the freedom of religion. Does Canada still have a state religion? We've *never* had one here, and our Constitution specifically forbids it. although some may be cults of some sort, speak what Americans call 'English' Like it or not, English *is* the principal language of commerce and day-to-day life in this country. (although why it is still called that, so many years after the Boston Tea Party, is odd?), carry a gun and complain about having to wear a car seat belt? Maybe you ought to spend some time traveling in the States. Get to actually know a few Americans. Form your opinions about us from some source other than television. I trust most readers will perceive that this is being written somewhat facetiously? :-) Yeah, very funny. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". It seems to me that I have seen many reports that the common view is they want to find and send back anyone, including those employed who are here without permission. Yep. You still don't get it. The point is that when they come in without the proper documentation, we can't do the background checks necessary to make sure that they're not criminals. I wonder if it would not be a good idea to put a fence around Iowa and require the same kind of documentation? I guess that's up to the citizens of Iowa. How about your city. Would you support a law that no one with a criminal record as a pedophile would be allowed in and make sure that anyone who is not already there provide proof at the city limits that they don't have such a record? Sure. Why not? You are scary. -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. . How about your city. Would you support a law that no one with a criminal record as a pedophile would be allowed in and make sure that anyone who is not already there provide proof at the city limits that they don't have such a record? Sure. Why not? You are scary. Joseph Meehan He's be the first one to complain about his civil liberties being violated when he was asked for whatever form of proof he has in mind. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Kanter wrote: "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message legroups.com... ..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they could be, the machines would exist. ............. not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no incentive for such a machine to exist. . ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also too delicate for anything but human handling...... Again at what relative cost? as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields will be stunted no machine could ever fly, one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound, it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely how could one ever operate on a persons heart active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive! what else do we put on the list? The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap labor available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs. There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs. I don't think you can support those statements. There were numerous reasons that agriculture was mechanized--the war reduced the available labor, the mass movement toward the cities, the consolidation of farms into bigger units, the change from the "family farm" to farming as a business, the change in machinery available etc. This still doesn't explain why we don't have machines to harvest strawberries and quite a few other crops. Just to be sure we're on the same page here, do you believe the reason is that there's no demand for them? No to the last. The reason is probably economics, cheaper to pay labor than to develop, buy, and maintain machines. Also the way they are grown would probably have to change and could increase costs. It certainly isn't because the strawberries are delicate. Recent ones that I ate were nearly as hard as apples. Farmers don't develop the machinery, and farm equipment manufacturers don't pay farm laborers. But, never mind. I'm doing some research that should interest you. I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). Doug- We just have largely different as per your comment "Farmers don't develop the machinery, and farm equipment manufacturers don't pay farm laborers." My repsonse is "yeah, so what" it's called economic specialization btw you're wrong about "Farmers don't develop the machinery" my recently deceased (~95 years old) across the street neighbor, a major farm industry player in OC, CA. was instrumental in the development of many farm implements; a massive plow system, a string bean harvester & a sugar beat harverster (those are just the ones I can remember) I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). And this is important, why? without a before & after cost of labor vs capital analysis this is all pretty much a waste of time. I happen to strongly believe in economics as a driving force, you apparently do not. cheers Bob |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"BobK207" wrote in message
ups.com... I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). And this is important, why? without a before & after cost of labor vs capital analysis this is all pretty much a waste of time. It's pertinent because earlier in this discussion, some yahoo said we should replace illegal workers with machines. I commented that many crops cannot be harvested successfully by machine. Now, follow me he If these yahoos had their way, and if we lived in a fairy tale, the law would change in a few months, and illegal farm workers would be gone quickly. But, if we actually booted out so many workers in a short period of time, you could kiss many of your favorite foods goodbye for an unknown period of time. Why unknown? Because neither you nor I have any idea whether, for instance, anyone's experimented with machines to pick strawberries. I e-mailed John Deere Corp. to find out. I'll let you know. I do NOT disagree with your comment that money pushes ideas. However, the ideas we're discussing here may have already been found to be impractical. Naturally, all this could change if the strawberry industry launches an ad campaign to convince us that bruised, rotting berries are a good thing. Then, they could harvest them using crop dusters pulling fish nets. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Joseph Meehan wrote: Jim Yanik wrote: "Joseph Meehan" wrote in : Let's back up a little. Why do you want those immigration laws that keep out others. Every country has their own form of immigration laws. People come here for a chance to better themselves but most do it legally. I lived in Central America for 1 year decades ago and even they have immigration laws. By the way I was there legally. Talk to the legal immigrants and you will find they are every bit as angry as the rest of us. They feel it isn't right to reward the law breakers by giving them amnesty, they feel anger that those are the same people who are causing the single largest strain on America's economy in medical, educational and legal cost which by the way the legal immigrants help pay for. I live and work among a large hispanic population and have absolutely no problem with any one I know. However, every day I see how our system is being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the growing load being placed on it. I can see our system reaching a breaking point in the not so distant future if we don't begin applying the laws already on the books. If the only excuse some people can come up with is: who would do all the physical labor that American's will not do (just in case someone forgot everyone who lives in North, Central and South are all American's)? If we have raised a nation of pansies who can't do any type of physical labor then shame on us. I can only hope we will all wake up and stop being a nation of whiners, criers and finger pointers. Pick ourselves up, grab our boot straps and get on with the things that need to be done and stop trying to be so politically correct. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Kanter wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: ((Snipped)) No to the last. The reason is probably economics, cheaper to pay labor than to develop, buy, and maintain machines. Also the way they are grown would probably have to change and could increase costs. It certainly isn't because the strawberries are delicate. Recent ones that I ate were nearly as hard as apples. Farmers don't develop the machinery, and farm equipment manufacturers don't pay farm laborers. But, never mind. I'm doing some research that should interest you. I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). That a specious argument (statement?). Of course farmers don't develop the machinery, but they buy the machinery and they pay the farm laborers. A machinery maker isn't going to develop a machine that is too expensive for farmers to buy. Yes, that would be interesting about which crops are hand harvested. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
But than US citizens would have more money to spend here in the US.
Much of what illegals from Mexico earn gets shipped back to MEXICO to support their families and never gets spent HERE. Then there's the savings from lower crimes I doubt illegals commit as many crimes per person as most other subgroups in the US, because they know if they are arrested, they'll likely be deported. They try to keep a low profile. Certainly I've never seen any statistical claim that they commit more crimes. Well, 100% of them commit crimes by the fact that they are illegal aliens. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
... Doug Kanter wrote: "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: ((Snipped)) No to the last. The reason is probably economics, cheaper to pay labor than to develop, buy, and maintain machines. Also the way they are grown would probably have to change and could increase costs. It certainly isn't because the strawberries are delicate. Recent ones that I ate were nearly as hard as apples. Farmers don't develop the machinery, and farm equipment manufacturers don't pay farm laborers. But, never mind. I'm doing some research that should interest you. I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). That a specious argument (statement?). Of course farmers don't develop the machinery, but they buy the machinery and they pay the farm laborers. A machinery maker isn't going to develop a machine that is too expensive for farmers to buy. You'd be terrified if you know what a typical corn harvesting setup costs. But, small farmers manage to buy them. Yes, that would be interesting about which crops are hand harvested. You really should trust what an ancient gardener like me tells you: Good Morning, My name is Kamal Bagri. I am Deputy Agricultural Commissioner with Stanislaus County. There are several crops which are harvested by field crews rather than machines. Some of them are listed below: Lettuce, Cantaloupes, Watermelon, Honeydews, Broccolli, Cauliflower, Squash, Pumpkins, Grapes, Cherries, Peaches, Apricots, Nectarines, Plums, Apples, Citrus, and Fresh market Tomatoes. For any further questions give me a call. Thank you. Kamaljit Bagri Deputy Ag. Commissioner/Sealer Stanislaus Dept. of Ag. and Wts. & Measures 3800 Cornucopia way, Suite B Modesto, CA 95358 |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
A comparison such as the one you have made is warped on so many levels
it is difficult to know where to begin. I have heard of anyone recommending separating the families, stealing their belongings, torturing them, using them as human guinea pigs or killing them. The only thing I have heard recommended and what I would like to see done is for the ILLEGAL immigrants to be sent back home or go through the legal process to become US citizens. No more! No Less! |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Kanter wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: ((Snipped)) No to the last. The reason is probably economics, cheaper to pay labor than to develop, buy, and maintain machines. Also the way they are grown would probably have to change and could increase costs. It certainly isn't because the strawberries are delicate. Recent ones that I ate were nearly as hard as apples. Farmers don't develop the machinery, and farm equipment manufacturers don't pay farm laborers. But, never mind. I'm doing some research that should interest you. I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). That a specious argument (statement?). Of course farmers don't develop the machinery, but they buy the machinery and they pay the farm laborers. A machinery maker isn't going to develop a machine that is too expensive for farmers to buy. You'd be terrified if you know what a typical corn harvesting setup costs. But, small farmers manage to buy them. Only if I had to buy it would I be terrified? The cost of equipment to just prepare the ground for planting is high, so is everything else. But of course that has nothing to do with anything. OTOH, no business man has hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital if he has an annual profit of $20,000. Harvesting equipment ranges from very small and relatively cheap equipment that is labor intensive to huge machines that cost a fortune. Somewhere in the "small farmer" category most do not own the harvesting equipment but hire harvesting crews. Yes, that would be interesting about which crops are hand harvested. You really should trust what an ancient gardener like me tells you: Good Morning, My name is Kamal Bagri. I am Deputy Agricultural Commissioner with Stanislaus County. There are several crops which are harvested by field crews rather than machines. Some of them are listed below: Lettuce, Cantaloupes, Watermelon, Honeydews, Broccolli, Cauliflower, Squash, Pumpkins, Grapes, Cherries, Peaches, Apricots, Nectarines, Plums, Apples, Citrus, and Fresh market Tomatoes. For any further questions give me a call. Thank you. Kamaljit Bagri Deputy Ag. Commissioner/Sealer Stanislaus Dept. of Ag. and Wts. & Measures 3800 Cornucopia way, Suite B Modesto, CA 95358 |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
moncheri wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote: Jim Yanik wrote: "Joseph Meehan" wrote in : Let's back up a little. Why do you want those immigration laws that keep out others. Every country has their own form of immigration laws. People come here for a chance to better themselves but most do it legally. I lived in Central America for 1 year decades ago and even they have immigration laws. By the way I was there legally. Talk to the legal immigrants and you will find they are every bit as angry as the rest of us. They feel it isn't right to reward the law breakers by giving them amnesty, they feel anger that those are the same people who are causing the single largest strain on America's economy in medical, educational and legal cost which by the way the legal immigrants help pay for. I live and work among a large hispanic population and have absolutely no problem with any one I know. However, every day I see how our system is being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the growing load being placed on it. I can see our system reaching a breaking point in the not so distant future if we don't begin applying the laws already on the books. I live in a small city close to a large city. Our school, fire police etc are all being stretched. Should be put up a fence and limit those who can come in? Just to make sure that no one comes and stays, we would also need to limit visitors as well. Do you think this is a good idea? The state also has problems so what are your thoughts about doing the same for the state as well? If the only excuse some people can come up with is: who would do all the physical labor that American's will not do (just in case someone forgot everyone who lives in North, Central and South are all American's)? If we have raised a nation of pansies who can't do any type of physical labor then shame on us. I can only hope we will all wake up and stop being a nation of whiners, criers and finger pointers. Pick ourselves up, grab our boot straps and get on with the things that need to be done and stop trying to be so politically correct. -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". It seems to me that I have seen many reports that the common view is they want to find and send back anyone, including those employed who are here without permission. Yep. You still don't get it. The point is that when they come in without the proper documentation, we can't do the background checks necessary to make sure that they're not criminals. I wonder if it would not be a good idea to put a fence around Iowa and require the same kind of documentation? I guess that's up to the citizens of Iowa. How about your city. Would you support a law that no one with a criminal record as a pedophile would be allowed in and make sure that anyone who is not already there provide proof at the city limits that they don't have such a record? Sure. Why not? You are scary. You still haven't explained why you think it's "bad" and "hateful" and "fearful" to want to make sure that the people coming into our country aren't criminals before we let them in. What's so scary about that? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
: moncheri wrote: Joseph Meehan wrote: Jim Yanik wrote: "Joseph Meehan" wrote in : Let's back up a little. Why do you want those immigration laws that keep out others. Every country has their own form of immigration laws. People come here for a chance to better themselves but most do it legally. I lived in Central America for 1 year decades ago and even they have immigration laws. By the way I was there legally. Talk to the legal immigrants and you will find they are every bit as angry as the rest of us. They feel it isn't right to reward the law breakers by giving them amnesty, they feel anger that those are the same people who are causing the single largest strain on America's economy in medical, educational and legal cost which by the way the legal immigrants help pay for. I live and work among a large hispanic population and have absolutely no problem with any one I know. However, every day I see how our system is being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the growing load being placed on it. I can see our system reaching a breaking point in the not so distant future if we don't begin applying the laws already on the books. I live in a small city close to a large city. Our school, fire police etc are all being stretched. Should be put up a fence and limit those who can come in? Just to make sure that no one comes and stays, we would also need to limit visitors as well. Do you think this is a good idea? The state also has problems so what are your thoughts about doing the same for the state as well? That is NOT the equivalent of National borders.Get a clue. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
|
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com: In article , wrote: On Thu, 04 May 2006 13:35:15 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: No, the reason hardly anyone talks about deporting them all is that it just isn't practical to round up and deport twelve million people. The Germans didn't have any problem doing it in the 30s and 40s ... with much the same prejudice. Well, you just blew any credibility that you might have hoped you had. Nobody is talking about rounding up twelve million people and GASSING them, you ass -- just rounding them up and SENDING THEM HOME. That's all part of the Liberal Demonization Tactic;comparing one to Nazis,or making extreme,far-out analogies as if they are somehow equivalent.(along with the "no borders" paradigm) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Doug Kanter wrote: "BobK207" wrote in message ups.com... I'll get back to you later about which crops are NOW harvested by machines (or not). And this is important, why? without a before & after cost of labor vs capital analysis this is all pretty much a waste of time. It's pertinent because earlier in this discussion, some yahoo said we should replace illegal workers with machines. I commented that many crops cannot be harvested successfully by machine. Now, follow me he If these yahoos had their way, and if we lived in a fairy tale, the law would change in a few months, and illegal farm workers would be gone quickly. But, if we actually booted out so many workers in a short period of time, you could kiss many of your favorite foods goodbye for an unknown period of time. Why unknown? Because neither you nor I have any idea whether, for instance, anyone's experimented with machines to pick strawberries. I e-mailed John Deere Corp. to find out. I'll let you know. I do NOT disagree with your comment that money pushes ideas. However, the ideas we're discussing here may have already been found to be impractical. Naturally, all this could change if the strawberry industry launches an ad campaign to convince us that bruised, rotting berries are a good thing. Then, they could harvest them using crop dusters pulling fish nets. Doug- Because neither you nor I have any idea whether, for instance, anyone's experimented with machines to pick strawberries. speak for yourself, I will speak for myself :) Don't contact John Deere........UC Davis Ag Engineering Dept would be the place to start. I do NOT disagree with your comment that money pushes ideas. oh, I thought you did disagree However, the ideas we're discussing here may have already been found to be impractical. like machines that fly or planes that go faster than the speed of sound? or autoloaders in a tank? or unmanned aircraft? or wired guided missiles or laser designated missiles or "fire & forget" missiles? or self destructing land mines? or GPS guided bombs? or body armor that will stop a .30 cal? or artificial blood ? or exothermic "powdered scab"? or nano-partiicle oil additives? genetically modified algae that produces mercury free (no fish source) DHA? or nirtrogen fixing trees, for thrid world renewable firewood & crop rotation? it's called engineering development, the market at work you could kiss many of your favorite foods goodbye for an unknown period of time. maybe I would choose to llive w/o artificially (taxpayer subsidized) cheap strawberries? maybe I'll choose to spend the money I would have spent on a new car for $10/lb stawberries or I drink cheaper (or less wine) to pay for my $trawberries? just like we all do with gas I like blueberries & cranberries. maybe we could import the berries rather than the berry pickers? maybe the Pringels people could do for strawberries what they did for potato chips? it's all about choices & cheap labor skews the choices towards cheap labor slolutions cheers Bob |
A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
Jim Yanik wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in . com: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote: The point is it is a bad hateful fearful decision. Nonsense. Please explain how wanting to make sure that the people who come here are employed (or at least employable), and do not have criminal records, is "a bad hateful fearful decision". It seems to me that I have seen many reports that the common view is they want to find and send back anyone, including those employed who are here without permission. Yep. You still don't get it. The point is that when they come in without the proper documentation, we can't do the background checks necessary to make sure that they're not criminals. I wonder if it would not be a good idea to put a fence around Iowa and require the same kind of documentation? I guess that's up to the citizens of Iowa. How about your city. Would you support a law that no one with a criminal record as a pedophile would be allowed in and make sure that anyone who is not already there provide proof at the city limits that they don't have such a record? Sure. Why not? You are scary. You still haven't explained why you think it's "bad" and "hateful" and "fearful" to want to make sure that the people coming into our country aren't criminals Or carrying dangerous infectious diseases,(and requiring medical treatment along with quarantine,all at OUR expense.) or bringing insect pests to devastate out agriculture and forests. before we let them in. What's so scary about that? - Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Jim- You make a very good point about "angerous infectious diseases" a map overlay of illegal immigrantion, resistant TD & Hep A all match Source.....Time magazine cheers Bob |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter